cornwall coellho

8/14/2019 cornwall coellho

1/29

Spaces for Change?

The Politics of Participation

in New Democratic Arenas

Andrea Cornwall and Vera Schattan P. Coelho

The challenge of building democratic polities where all can realizetheir rights and claim their citizenship is one of the greatest of ourage. Reforms in governance have generated a profusion of new

spaces for citizen engagement. In some settings, older institutions with

legacies in colonial rule have been remodelled to suit contemporarygovernance agendas; in others, constitutional and governance reforms

have given rise to entirely new structures. These hybrid new demo-cratic spaces (Cornwall and Coelho are intermediate, situatedas they are at the interface between the state and society; they arealso, in many respects, intermediary spaces, conduits for negotiation,information and exchange. They may be provided and provided for by

the state, backed in some settings by legal or constitutional guaranteesand regarded by state actors as thei space into which citizens andtheir representatives are invited. Yet they may also be seen as spacesconquered by civil society demands for inclusion.1 Some are fleeting,one-off consultative events; others are regularized institutions with amore durable presence on the governance landscape.

In contrast to analyses that situate such institutions within thepublic sphere, such as Avritzers () powerful account of Brazils

participatory governance institutions, or within the ambit of the state,as in Fung and Wrights () empowered participatory governance,

we suggest that they constitute a distinct arena at the interface ofstate and society: what we term here the participatory sphere. Theinstitutions of this sphere have a semi-autonomous existence, outsideand apart from the institutions of formal politics, bureaucracy and


2/29

everyday associational life, although they are often threaded throughwith preoccupations and positions formed in them. As arenas in

which the boundaries of the technical and the political come tobe negotiated, they serve as an entirely different kind of interfacewith policy processes than other avenues through which citizenscan articulate their demands such as protest, petitioning, lobbyingand direct action or indeed organize to satisfy their own needs(Cornwall and Gaventa ; Goetz and Gaventa . These arespaces of contestation as well as collaboration, into which heteroge-neous participants bring diverse interpretations of participation and

democracy and divergent agendas. As such, they are crucibles for anew politics of public policy.his book explores the contours of this new politics. It brings

together case studies that examine the democratic potential of adiversity of participatory sphere institutions: hospital facility boards inSouth Africa; a national-level deliberative process in Canada; partici-patory policy councils and community groups in Brazil, India, Mexico

and Bangladesh; participatory budgeting in Argentina; NGO-created

participatory fora in Angola and Bangladesh; community fora in theK; and new intermediary spaces created by social movements in

South Africa. Contributors take up the promises offered by advocatesof participation whether enhanced efficiency and effectiveness

of public policy, deeper democracy or a more engaged citizenry(Mansbridge ; Fung and Wright ; Dryzek ; Gaventa) and explore them in a diversity of social, cultural and

political contexts.ogether, contributors examine the extent to which the expansion

of the participatory sphere serves to further the project of democ-ratization, via the inclusion of diverse interests and the extensionof democratizing practices in the state and public sphere, and thatof development, via the enhanced efficacy and equity of public

policies. A number of studies focus specifically on health, a sectorthat combines a history of radical promises inspired by the Alma Ata Declaration, exciting innovations such as the Brazilianhealth councils and experiments in deliberation in health systems inthe global North, with systemic challenges that include entrenchedinequalities of knowledge and power. They are complemented bycases that explore a range of other democratic and developmentalspaces, from participation in resource allocation and management toneighbourhood-based associations and fora.


3/29

Departing from a literature characterized more by success storiesin contexts where progressive government is matched with strong,

organized civil society and institutional innovation, such as participa-tory budgeting in Porto Alegre or participatory planning in Kerala(Heller; Fung and Wright ), the majority of the cases weconsider here are much more ordinary. And the tales our contribu-

tors tell of empty spaces (Mohanty), of absent representativesand voices (Mohanty; Mahmud; Williams; von Lieres and Kahane;von Lieres), of the play of politics within these arenas (Cornwall;Rodgers) and of the multiplicity of claims to legitimacy levered

by civil society (Barnes; Castello, Gurza Lavalle and Houtzager;Roque and Shankland) attest to the complexities of inclusive,participatory governance. We explore the extent to which Northerndebates on deliberative democracy and participatory governance

travel to contexts where post-authoritarian regimes, fractured andchronically under-resourced state services and pervasive clientelismleave in their wake fractious and distrustful relationships betweencitizens and the state, alongside two Northern cases that illustrate

some of the challenges of inclusion that remain in progressiveestablished democracies.

he expansion of participatory arenas has, in some contexts,

facilitated the creation of new political actors and political sub-

jectivities (Baocchi ; Heller ; Avritzer . Yet for all

the institutional innovation of recent years, there remains a gap

between the legal and technical apparatus that has been created toinstitutionalize participation and the reality of the effective exclusion

of poorer and more marginalized citizens. It is with this gap, and thechallenges of inclusion, representation and voice that arise in seekingto bridge it, that this book is primarily concerned. It is organizedin two sections to reflect a central concern with, on the one hand,substantive inclusion and, on the other, the broader democratizingeffects of the participatory sphere. That these are interdependent isevident; accordingly, this introduction weaves together themes arising

from across the book as a whole.In what follows, we seek to contextualize themes emerging from

the case studies presented in this book with regard to broader debates

on the politics of participatory governance. We begin by highlighting

some of the promises of participation, and consider some of thecomplexities of realizing them in practice. We go on to draw onthe case studies presented in this book to explore what they have to


4/29

tell us about the multiple interfaces through which citizens engagewith the state and the new configurations of actors and practices

of participation that animate the participatory sphere, and what thisimplies for democratization and development.

Participation, Democracy, Development

Shifting frames for development intervention have brought debates that

have absorbed generations of political philosophers to the forefront of

contemporary development policy.2

From local co-governance andco-management institutions promoted by supra-national agencies andinstitutionalized by national governments (Ackerman ; Manor), to the explosion in the use of participatory and deliberativemechanisms, from Citizens Juries to Participatory Poverty Assessments

(Fischer ; Chambers ), the last decade has been one inwhich the voices of the public, and especially of the poor, haveincreasingly been sought.

A confluence of development and democratization agendashas brought citizen engagement in governance to centre stage.

Decentralization policies promoted in the s claimed to bringgovernment closer to the people (Blair ; UNDP ).

overnance and sector reforms, instigated and promoted by lend-ing agencies and bilateral donors, created a profusion of sites inwhich citizens came to be enlisted in enhancing accountability andstate responsiveness (Crook and Sverisson ; Manor; Goetz

and Jenkins ). A decade of experimentation with participa-tory methodologies and efforts to scale up participation within

development bureaucracies (Thompson ; Chambers )

led to a late-s turn to questions of participatory governance(Gaventa . At the same time, the deliberative turn in debateson democracy and the politics of public policy reflects growinginterest in the potential of deliberative institutions and practices fordemocratic renewal in the North (Bohman and Rehg ; Dryzek; Hajer and Wagenaar ; Fung , and democratizationof statesociety relations in the South (Heller ; Avritzer ;

oelho and Nobre ).hese distinct strands come together in the belief that involving

citizens more directly in processes of governance makes for bettercitizens, better decisions and better government (Mansbridge ;


5/29

Cohen and Sabel ; Avritzer ; Gaventa ). Common toall is a conviction that participatory fora that open up more effective

channels of communication and negotiation between the state andcitizens serve to enhance democracy, create new forms of citizenshipand improve the effectiveness and equity of public policy. Enablingcitizens to engage directly in local problem-solving activities and tomake their demands directly to state bodies is believed to improveunderstanding, and contribute to improving the quality of definitionand implementation of public programmes and policies (Cunill ;Cohen and Sabel ; Abers ; Fung ). These policies and

programmes are seen, in turn, as contributing to guaranteeing theaccess of the poorest to social services, thus enhancing prospects foreconomic and political inclusion, and for development (World Bank; UNDP ).

A host of normative assumptions are embedded in accounts of the

benefits of participation, which tend to merge descriptive and pre-scriptive elements without clearly defining the boundaries betweenempirical reference and normative political discourse. Underlying

these assumptions is the belief that citizens are ready to participateand share their political agendas with bureaucrats as long as they areoffered appropriate opportunities and that bureaucrats are willingto listen and respond. As the studies in this book demonstrate,

the gap between normative expectations and empirical realities

presents a number of challenges for the projects of democratizationand development. It becomes evident that the participation of thepoorer and more marginalized is far from straightforward, and that

a number of preconditions exist for entry into participatory institu-tions. Much depends on who enters these spaces, on whose terms and

with whatepistemic authority (Chandoke ).Evelina Dagnino () highlights a perverse confluence between

two versions of participation in contemporary debates on governance.

On the one hand, participation is cast as a project constructed around

the extension of citizenship and the deepening of democracy. Onthe other, participation has come to be associated with shrinkingstate responsibilities and the progressive exemption of the state fromthe role of guarantor of rights, making the market what Dagninohas called a surrogate arena of citizenship (: ). In this logic,citizens as users become self-providers as well as consumers of

services (Cornwall and Gaventa ). The paradox, Dagnino observes,

is that both require an active, indeed proactive, civil society.


6/29

One of the themes that runs through this book is an insistenceon the need to unpack the category civil society, to examine

critically who comes to represent citizens in the participatory sphereand the role that civil society organizations might play in enhancingaccess and democratizing decision-making in this arena. Civil societyorganizations are commonly believed to possess the democratizingproperties that are associated with the public sphere (Cohen andArato ; Acharya et al. ; Edwards ). Yet civil society isin effect a residual category, in which more progressive politicizedelements come to be conflated with apolitical or positively reactionary

civic organizations that may have anti-democratic ideals and practices(Dryzek ). After all, as Chandoke () reminds us, civil societyis only as democratizing as its practitioners.

Accounts of civil societys virtues highlight the role such organiza-

tions can play in holding the state to account. Yet the growing partcivil society organizations have come to play as providers as wellas intermediaries not only blurs the boundaries of the state/civilsociety binary, it also raises questions about their autonomy and

indeed accountability (Chandoke ; Tvedt ). Where civilsociety actors are able to stimulate new social and political practicesthat they then carry into the participatory and public spheres, theycan make a significant contribution to inclusiveness and deliberation(Avritzer ; Cohen and Arato ). Yet it is a leap of faith toextend these positive effects to civil society at large, as Acharyaet al. ( point out. A key question, then, is which kinds ofcivil society organizations enable inclusive participation, and what

are the conditions under which they come to flourish and gaininfluence.

he reconfiguration of statesociety relations that is taking placewith the introduction of the kinds of new democratic sites andpractices that are the focus for this book also calls for a view ofthe state that goes beyond constructing it as a monolith. As IrisMarion Young argues:

it is a misleading reification to conceptualise government institutionsas forming a single, uniform, coherent governance system, the state.In fact, at least in most societies in the world today with functioningstate institutions, these institutions interlock at different levels, sometimesoverlap in jurisdiction, and sometimes work independently or at crosspurposes. (: )


7/29

Indeed, state actors in the participatory sphere may share beliefs,ideals, prejudices and social networks with social actors (Heller);

and some of these actors are a far cry from the dull or intrusivebureaucrat (du Gay ), even if others make an art form oftechnocratic obstruction. It is, after all, the state that is often theobject of mobilization and that remains the guarantor of rights; andstate-provided participatory spaces, such as many of those analysedhere, not only provide venues for civil society engagement but canactively stimulate the creation of new political collectivities (Baocchi; Young ).

What this discussion underscores is the need to understand boththe state and civil society as heterogenous and mutually constitu-tive terrains of contestation (Houtzager ; Skocpol and Fiorina; Chandoke ). This calls for a view of participation as acontingent outcome, produced as collective actors (civil society,

state and other) negotiate relations in a pre-existing terrain thatconstrains and facilitates particular kinds of action (Acharya et al. ). Democratization comes with this to extend beyond the

introduction of standard packages associated with liberal democraticreform programmes. As John Dryzek argues:

emocratization is not the spread of liberal democracy to ever morecorners of the world, but rather extensions along any one of three di-mensions The first is franchise, expansion of the number of peoplecapable of participating effectively in collective decision. The second isscope, bringing more issues and areas of life potentially under democraticcontrol The third is the authenticity of the control : to be real

rather than symbolic, involving the effective participation of autonomousand competent actors. (:

Participatory sphere institutions potentially contribute along all

three of these dimensions, multiplying spaces in which growing

numbers of people come to take part in political life, giving riseto new political subjectivities and opening up ever more areas ofdecision-making to public engagement. It is, however, with the thirdof Dryzeks dimensions that this book is primarily concerned. Andit is in relation to the question of the authenticity and the qualityof citizen participation that our work intersects with vibrant debatesin political theory on issues of representation and deliberation, as wego on to explore in more depth later in this chapter (Fraser

Young ; Mansbridge ; Dryzek ; Fung ).


8/29

Towards Substantive Participation

What does it take for marginalized and otherwise excluded actorsto participate meaningfully in institutionalized participatory fora andfor their participation to result in actual shifts in policy and practice?Institutionalists have argued that the key to enhancing participationis to be found in better institutional designs: in rules and decision-making processes that encourage actors to participate (Immergut

; Fung ). Social movement theorists have argued that thekey lies in social mobilization that pushes for fairer distribution

of available resources (Tarrow ; Alvarez, Dagnino and Escobar). The studies in this book point to a more complex set ofinteractions between getting design principles right and stimulatingparticipation from below. If participatory sphere institutions are tobe genuinely inclusive and have teeth that is, if they are to bemore than therapeutic or rubber-stamping exercises (see Arnstein) a number of critical issues need to be addressed.

First, expanding democratic engagement calls for more than

invitations to participate (Cornwall ). For people to be able toexercise their political agency, they need first to recognize themselves

as citizens rather than see themselves as beneficiaries or clients.

Acquiring the means to participate equally demands processes ofpopular education and mobilization that can enhance the skills andconfidence of marginalized and excluded groups, enabling them toenter and engage in participatory arenas. The studies in this book byvon Lieres, Williams, von Lieres and Kahane, Mahmud, and Mohanty

point to the significance of societal spaces beyond the participatoryarena in building the capacity of marginalized groups to participate(see Fraser ; Kohn ). Yet participatory sphere institutionsare also spaces for creating citizenship, where through learning toparticipate citizens cut their political teeth and acquire skills that canbe transferred to other spheres whether those of formal politicsor neighbourhood action as Roque and Shanklands, Barness, and

ornwalls chapters suggest.Second, questions of inclusion imply questions of representation.

If these institutions are to represent the community, users, civilsociety or indeed citizens, on what basis do people enter them

and what are their claims to legitimacy to speak for others? Whatmechanisms, if any, exist to facilitate the representation of marginalized

groups, and what do these amount to in practice? And what else


9/29

might be needed to create the basis for broader-based representation?

Across our cases, there is a significant contrast between settings in

which highly organized and articulate social movements participateas collective actors as in Brazil and Argentina (Castello et al., Coelho;Cornwall; Rodgers), and those like Bangladesh, India and South Africa

in which individuals take up places made available to them as anextension of family responsibilities, or by virtue of their sex or race,rather than the constituencies they represent (Mahmud; Mohanty;Williams). These questions of representation draw attention to thedifferent kinds of politics and prospects for democracy that emerge

in and across different cultural and political contexts.hird, simply putting structures of participation in place is notenough to create viable political institutions. Much comes to dependon the motivations of those who enter them, and what participation

means to them. Is participation promoted so that bureaucrats canlisten to peoples experiences and understand their concerns, so asto make better policies? Or so that citizens come to play an activepart in crafting and monitoring policies? Or, indeed, so that these

publics can challenge bureaucrats to be more accountable? Our studiesdemonstrate not only the polyvalence of the concept of participation

(Mahmud; von Lieres; Mohanty) but also the coexistence within anysingle setting of plural and competing understandings of whatcan be gained that are in constant negotiation (Cornwall; Rodgers;Roque and Shankland).

Fourth, no one wants to just talk and talk and not see anythingchange. What, then, does it take for participation to be effective as

well as inclusive (Warren ? Coelho ( and here) suggeststhat the conjunction of three factors is critical: involvement by awide spectrum of popular movements and civil associations, com-mitted bureaucrats, and inclusive institutional designs that addressexclusionary practices and embedded bias. In contexts with highlyasymmetrical resource distribution among participants, there is a

very real danger of elite capture (Mahmud; Mohanty). Equally, thepath-dependency of policy choices can constrain deliberation to

issues of implementation, offering little real scope for rethinkingpolicies. Certain institutional designs are, Fung () argues, moreor less inclined to promote the legitimacy, justice or effectiveness ofdecisions taken in these spaces. These dimensions do not converge,Fung points out: it is hard to privilege one without sacrificing

others. Where institutions are implanted without attention to design


10/29

features that help mediate conflict, secure particular configurationsof roles and forms of representation, and address the tensions and

trade-offs between inclusiveness and effectiveness, it is easy enoughfor old ways and forms of exclusion and domination to persist innew spaces (Cornwall ).

Lastly, what effects do participatory spheres have on citizenshipand on political engagement more generally? While some writers areoptimistic about their potential to stimulate further participation anddemocratization from below (Baocchi ; Avritzer ), otherspoint to the ambivalent effects of institutionalized participation on

social and political energy and thus on further democratization(Piven and Cloward ; Dryzek ; Taylor . Negative

effects such as disillusionment and a gradual fizzling out of energyand commitment emerge most clearly in Barness chapter. But

other chapters point to other, unanticipated, democratizing effects,as institutions that began with a relatively restricted remit gave riseto forms of engagement that spilled beyond their boundaries, orwhere social actors seized opportunities to repoliticize these spaces

(Rodgers; Roque and Shankland). These cases drive home the pointthat participation is a process over time, animated by actors withtheir own social and political projects. Most of all, they emphasizethe importance of contextualizing participatory sphere institutionswith regard to other political institutions and situating them on thesocial, cultural and historical landscapes of which they form part(Heller ; Cornwall ).

In the sections that follow, we explore issues arising from these

points in more depth. We begin by considering what the studies inthis volume have to tell us about the micropolitics of participation in

institutionalized participatory arenas. We go on to address questionsof difference, and the issues of representation and the politics ofinclusion that arise. Finally, we turn to consider the democratizingeffects and dimensions of the participatory sphere, with a focus

both on engagement with the state and on substantive prospects fordemocratizing democracy.

paces of Power: The Micropolitics of Participation

From the discursive framing that shapes what can be deliberated, tothe deployment of technical language and claims to authority thatreinstitutionalize existing cleavages in society, to the way the use


11/29

of labels such as users or community members circumscribes thepolitical agency of participants, power courses through every dimen-

sion of the participatory sphere. As invited spaces, the institutionsof the participatory sphere are framed by those who create them,and infused with power relations and cultures of interaction carriedinto them from other spaces (Cornwall ). These are spaces ofpower, in which forms of overt or tacit domination silence certainactors or keep them from entering at all (Gaventa ). Yet theseare also spaces of possibility, in which power takes a more productiveand positive form: whether in enabling citizens to transgress positions

as passive recipients and assert their rights or in contestations overgovernmentality (Foucault .Viewing participation as a contingent, contested process highlights

the micropolitics of encounters in participatory arenas. The studies in

this book situate this micropolitics in sites with very different histories

of statecitizen interaction, configurations of political institutions,and political cultures. From post-conflict Angola to New LaboursBritain, from rural Bangladesh to urban Brazil, the studies in this

volume range across contexts with distinctively different historiesand cultures. While persistent inequalities and forms of embeddedexclusion exist in all, their dimensions and dynamics differ, as donotions of citizenship, and the degree and kinds of social mobilization

and state-supported efforts to redress systemic discrimination, whether

on the basis of gender, race, caste or class (Kabeer ).haudhuri and Heller () argue that a critical shortcoming

of the debate on deepening democracy has been its assumption

that individuals are equally able to form associations and engage inpolitical activity. This, they argue, ignores fundamental differences inpower between social groups:

If this is problematic in any less-than-perfect democracy (and there are noperfect democracies) it is especially problematic in developing democra-cies where basic rights of association are circumscribed and distorted bypervasive vertical dependencies (clientelistic relationships), routine formsof social exclusion (e.g. the caste system, purdah), the unevenness and

at times complete failure of public legality, and the persistence of pre-democratic forms of authority. (:

Williamss account of health facilities boards in South Africa reveals

the tenacious hold of older practices of paternalism in these newspaces, reproducing patterns of interaction inherited from the racistpast. He argues that the very culture and design of South African


12/29

health facilities boards serve to perpetuate the dominance of whites,and sustain existing hierarchies of power and privilege. Internalization

of norms valuing certain knowledges and forms of discourse canlead to people silencing themselves. Williams quotes a young Blackbusinesswoman: Black people do not participate because they feelinferior to white people. Participation requires special knowledgeand Black people do not have the necessary knowledge to engagewhite people on matters such as health.

Simply creating spaces does little to rid them of the dispositionsparticipants may bring into them (see Bourdieu ). Professionals

valued for their expertise in one context may be unwilling tocountenance the validity or value of alternative knowledges and

practices in another; and citizens who have been on the receiv-ing end of paternalism or prejudice in everyday encounters withstate institutions may bring these expectations with them into theparticipatory sphere. Mahmuds study of Bangladeshi Community

roups (CGs), which were created as part of health sector reformsas ways of engaging community participation in the governance

of health services, reveals some of these dynamics. She shows howexisting social cleavages are mapped onto participatory institutions,reducing poorer men and women to silence. Mahmud cites a landless

woman CG member, who commented: I am poor and ignorant,what will I say? Those who are more knowledgeable speak more.

Yet she also reveals a reversal of these power dynamics when itcomes to other forms of engagement, in which those silenced inparticipatory spaces regain their agency and voice. She cites a female

grassroots Community Group member: the educated and well-offmembers can debate or discuss a point in an organized way butwhen it comes to protesting they are usually silent and try to stayout of the scene.

Mohantys chapter highlights precisely this kind of contrast in thecontext of rural India: between empty spaces of local governanceand watershed management in which womens participation is

marginal or absent, and women-only health groups in which theyare active. She shows how available opportunities to participate arecircumscribed by essentialized stereotypes of womens concerns andcapabilities, leaving little scope for women to participate as citizensrather than as wards or mothers. In a context where women havescant opportunity to learn the skills needed to engage effectively inthe participatory sphere, and where social sanctions work to ostracize


13/29

those who do assert themselves, there are potent barriers to inclusion.

Some women do manage to break with normative expectations and

begin to claim their rights to voice. But this may invite other formsof exclusion. She cites Nirmala, a womens health worker:

Few women here have the awareness about their rights. Some of us whoare educated and are aware about our rights, we are seen as a nuisanceand a constant threat within the village. Hence, while women who aresilent and docile will be called to meetings, we will be deliberately keptoutside.

For people living in poverty, subject to discrimination and exclusion

from mainstream society, the experience of entering a participatoryspace can be extremely intimidating. How they talk and what theytalk about may be perceived by professionals as scarcely coherentor relevant; their participation may be viewed by the powerful aschaotic, disruptive and unproductive. Iris Marion Young argues thatnorms of deliberation are culturally specific and often operate asforms of power that silence or devalue the speech of some people

(: ). A potent challenge for substantive inclusion is, then,overcoming the embedded inequalities in status, technical knowledgeand power that persistently undermine what Chandoke terms thelinguistic and epistemic authority (: ) of subaltern actors.

Bridging these inequalities through mediation, training or coaching

offers the promise of enhancing the possibilities of deliberation. Butthere are also risks. As we go on to suggest, strategies to amplifythe voice of marginalized groups may complicate efforts to foster

deliberation. Barnes describes, for example, how young people in theUK were coached by youth workers to present acceptable versionsof concerns that might have been devalued if they were expressedin young peoples own language. Strategic interpretation on the partof well-meaning intermediaries may, as Chandoke () argues,

overshadow authentic communication and leave the subaltern no less

silenced than before. Mobilization may bring marginalized actors into

participatory spaces, but not necessarily equip them with the skills

to communicate effectively with the others that they meet there.And activists with experience in social movements, political partiesor unions may bring with them more confrontational and directlypartisan styles of politics that depart from the consensus-seeking

and rational modes of argumentation of deliberative democracy, asCornwalls Brazilian case study shows.


14/29

Yet these very power dynamics can also imbue participatory

spaces with their dynamism. Spaces for participation may be created

with one purpose in mind, but can come to be used by socialactors to renegotiate their boundaries. Discourses of participationare, after all, not a singular, coherent, set of ideas or prescriptions,but configurations of strategies and practices that are played out onconstantly shifting ground (Foucault . In Mahmuds account ofthe activist NGO Nijera Koris work with health watch committeesin Bangladesh, the transformation of management spaces intopoliticalspaces redefined their possibilities. Roque and Shanklands account

of the mutation of donor-introduced institutions in Angola revealshow participants other projects refashioned and reconfigured theirscope, generating new leadership and democratizing effects. Rodgerss

chapter provides a particularly rich account of these dynamics. Heshows how the Participatory Budgeting process in Buenos Aires

overlaid existing sociopolitical practices and relations to provide spaces

of autonomy within the process, which allowed the subverting ofthe subversion of politicization. These studies reveal the vitality of

the participatory sphere and its transformatory potential; they alsounderscore the point that much depends on who comes to participate

within its institutions, to which we now turn.

uestions of Representation

Distinctive to the participatory sphere are new, plural and markedly

different forms of representation and accountability from thoseconventionally associated with the institutions of liberal democracy(Houtzager et al. ). These encode different logics and norms ofdemocracy, construing different understandings about who ught toparticipate. Civil society comes to be represented in a variety ofways: by individuals speaking about and for themselves, by nominatedrepresentatives from non-governmental organizations, by elected

representatives from neighbourhood associations, by members of col-lective actors such as unions or movements, and other variants besides.

here is evidence of tension resulting from the different sources oflegitimacy that underpin claims to speak and act as representatives;inclusionary aspirations or objectives may conflict with claims based on

the legitimacy afforded by evidence of committed action on the partof marginalized groups (chapters by Barnes, and Castello et al.).


15/29

he extensive literature on representation offers a range of per-spectives on how best to ensure the inclusion of less organized

and vocal groups. There is a current that argues for a more directdemocratic approach: participatory sphere institutions should beopen to everyone who wants to participate. Some point out therisk self-selection poses for favouring those with most resources, andpropose methods of random selection that seek to mirror the makeup

of the population (Fishkin and Luskin ). Others focus less onthe methods of selection and more on incentives, concentrating thefocus of fora on questions of particular interest to poorer citizens

(Fung ). This current is counterposed to arguments that the veryprocess of creating a basis for representation for marginalized socialgroups is only possible if there is a parallel process of mobilizationand definition of collective identities and agendas.

Across our cases, there is a diversity of forms of representation that

speak to both these perspectives. Mahmud describes how in Com-munity Groups managing village-level health services in Bangladeshindividuals speaking as community representatives are generally elites

professionals, teachers, wealthy farmers and their wives appointedby the chairman. In Williamss account of South African health

facilities boards (HFBs), those who speak for patients interests aremore likely to be working for community health than representingparticular social groups. Castello et al.s chapter offers a differentperspective, from a context that is markedly different: Brazils largestcity, So Paulo, where citizen participation generally refers to theengagement of registered civil society organizations, of which there

are many hundreds. Their findings shed further light on questionsof representation in the participatory sphere. Less than per centof the organizations surveyed represented themselves as descriptiverepresentatives; and a similarly small number saw themselves in classic

electoral terms. For almost half, the vast majority, representation wasabout ediation. Such organizations saw themselves as about advocat-ing for the rights of others, and providing a bridge between poorlyor under-represented segments of the population and the state.

he experiences brought together in this book point to trade-offsthat need to be taken into account when examining the capacityof the participatory sphere to promote the inclusion of sectors ofsociety that have traditionally been marginalized. To what extent, forexample, would a preference for forums where the public come to be

represented by methods of random selection open the doors of these


16/29

institutions for those who may otherwise find it difficult to enter (see

Fishkin and Luskin )? And to what extent would this reproduce

the highly asymmetrical distribution of social, symbolic, political andeconomic resources that exist in society at large, unmediated bypractices of organizing that can lend more marginalized actors theskills to participate effectively? It is one thing for citizens to enterparticipatory fora to inform themselves and generate opinions fromreasoned discussion, and another again for these discussions to consist

of debates among politicized collective actors with strongly polarized

positions. The challenge associated with the first situation is how to

foment processes in which poorer and more marginalized citizenscan find their voice; that of the second is the risk of contributing tothe radicalization and amplification of the power of veto of groupswho feel themselves to be on the margins politically, which cansubstantially restrict the democratic potential of these arenas.

Deliberative democrats would argue that providing participantswith sufficient information and access to expertise, and seeking toencourage them to form positions during discussions rather than to

bring pre-prepared positions and agendas with them, can instil newnorms of conduct (Fung ). Good facilitation can play a hugelyimportant role. Techniques that are explicitly oriented to amplifyingthe voices of the least vocal enhance the possibilities of deliberation,allowing positions to be openly debated rather than defensively

asserted. And the introduction of innovative interactive practices canbegin to change the culture of interaction in the participatory sphere,

countering the reproduction of old hierarchies and exclusions, and

enabling a greater diversity of voices to be heard. Yet, at the same time, it is evident that some actors inevitably

arrive at the table with ideas, impressions and knowledge that noamount of facilitation or deliberation can budge; to expect any lessis to depoliticize profoundly the process of deliberation, as well asto shunt out of the frame preferences, beliefs and alliances that areby their very nature political. Those who have some resources forexample, links with the party political system or powerful patrons

stand better placed to expand their chances of access to these forato advance their own agendas. Affiliation to other societally produced

means of organizing collective interests, whether mass-based popularmovements or formal political parties, are never simply left at thedoor when people come to deliberate, as Cornwalls, Rodgerss, andBarness studies show. Understanding the politics of these spaces


17/29

requires closer attention to political networks that span the state,participatory and public spheres, and to the implications of the

articulations they make possible.Von Lieres and Kahanes study of a national-level deliberativeprocess in Canada raises a further question: to what extent are therules of the game adopted to facilitate inclusive deliberation culturalartefacts and how do they implicitly exclude other culturally defined

ways of thinking about representation? The Romanow Commis-sions review of Canadas healthcare system failed, they contend, totake seriously enough how marginalization may be perpetuated in

deliberative spaces. By enlisting citizens as individuals, the dialoguefailed to give Aboriginal people sufficient opportunity for voice,precisely because the individualistic premisses of the method usedclashed with indigenous forms of group-based representation thatworks through affiliation. Their analysis highlights the significance ofresponsiveness to culturally located forms of organization, representa-

tion and deliberation, as well as the importance of the creation ofspaces for what they call affiliated marginalized citizens.

Jane Mansbridge suggests that in communicative settings ofdistrust, uncrystallised interests and historically denigrated status (:

, descriptive representation the representation of a social groupby those from that social group who speak as, as well as for, thatgroup is necessary if substantive attention is to be given to theissues that affect this group. It is precisely this kind of setting thatWilliamss account addresses, and he highlights a series of factors thatconspire to exclude black participants from being able to engage in

a politics of presence: a lack of associations that can put forwardblack interests, a mismatch between mechanisms for enlistment andforms of communication that would reach black citizens, historicaldomination of similar institutions by middle-class whites oftenof the do-gooder variety, whose concern for poor black peopleeclipses black citizens capacity to represent their own interests andneeds and internalized disprivilege, with entailments in terms ofself-confidence and capacity to associate and voice demands. As

Phillips ( argues, a politics of presence offers both the symbolic

value of visibility and the possibility of more vigorous advocacy ofthe interests of otherwise excluded groups. In this setting, Williamscontends, it is precisely this that is needed.

In a critique of Habermass () notion of the public sphere,Fraser argues that marginalized groups may find greater opportunities


18/29

for exercising voice through creating their wn spaces, which she terms

subaltern counterpublics. She suggests that these spaces have a dual

character. On the one hand, they function as spaces of withdrawaland regroupment; on the other hand, they also function as basesand training groups for agitational activities directed toward widerpublics ( . Mansbridge () highlights another dimen-sion of such spaces: as laboratories of self-interest they can enablehistorically marginalized groups to build positions, construct a politics

of engagement and gain greater legitimacy to voice demands withinparticipatory sphere institutions. Such spaces can come to serve a

politics of transformation by giving previously excluded groups thetime and opportunity to construct their political preferences andexpress their concerns for themselves. They can also provide an arenafor making demands and concerns legible to the state.

Mobilization creates not only a shared language but also oppor-tunities for political apprenticeship and the conditions under whichnew leaders can emerge. In many of our cases it is activist NGOsthat have taken the lead in creating these spaces. But, as Mohanty,

Barnes and Cornwall emphasize, the state has a crucial role to playin redressing societal discrimination and actively supporting inclusion

of marginalized groups in political arenas of all kinds (Young ).As Heller () argues, closer attention needs to be paid to synergies

between social movements and state-supported political projects infostering the substantive participation of subaltern actors.

Engaging the State

reater attention has been given in work on participatory sphereinstitutions to social actors than to the state actors whose committedinvolvement is so decisive for their success (Abers ; Fox ;Heller ). Mahmuds case study of citizen mobilization in theabsence of engaged state actors shows critical limitations to achieving

changes in health delivery if those who plan and deliver services are

not part of the discussion, and the significance of recognition andinstitutional support by the state for the viability of participatoryinstitutions. Coelho highlights the significance of public officials

commitment as a co-factor in producing successful and inclusiveparticipatory fora. Barnes details what such actors contribute to

making participation meaningful. But surprisingly little is known


19/29

about what drives these actors to defend social participation as apolitical project. What is it that motivates state officials to participate

and to follow through decisions arrived at in these spaces? Whatmakes bureaucrats amenable to what can end up being long andconvoluted deliberative processes, rather than resorting to quickerand more authoritarian decision-making processes? What incentivesmotivate them to invest in creating a more enabling environment and

act in the interests of poorer and more marginalized citizens? Andwhat do they get out of participating in the participatory sphere?

he commitment of politicians and bureaucrats to participatory

governance needs to be analysed against a backdrop of a complexconjunction of variables. These include the values and party politicalaffiliations of these actors, attempts to influence and gain information

about public opinion, and the structure of opportunities defined bythe political system (Skocpol and Fiorina ). Where preferencesare unstable, it may be expedient for politicians to seek means

of securing opportunities to influence as well as respond to theconcerns of the electorate. Participatory sphere institutions may offer

such an opportunity if they are well grounded in relationships withbroader constituencies and communities; it may well be in politicians

interests to seek to enhance their viability (Heller; Mansbridge). As such, they form one way of discovering what influenceselectoral preferences alongside instruments such as opinion pollsor focus groups.

Yet an ostensible commitment to participatory governance can initself also pay political dividends. Politicians and senior bureaucrats

can adopt the mantle of participation to give themselves distinctivepublic identities as champions for the cause of open and accountablegovernment. In Brazil, for example, claims to be promoting popularparticipation appear on many a municipal government logo, and have

been the leftist Workers Partys badge of respectability as well as,arguably, a factor in their electoral success in the past. Politicians mayseek new allies in participatory arenas, whether against other politi-cians or to control the bureaucracy; in turn, participatory bureaucratsmay seek similar kinds of alliances, whether against elitist politiciansand bureaucrats or to gain support and legitimacy. Participation as apolitical project can be seen, then, as a strategy that seeks to cultivateallies, strengthen networks and gain votes.

Champions of change within bureaucracies play a crucial rolein creating and resourcing spaces for change, and as such become


20/29

allies for social movements and civil society (Fox ). Indeed, statesupport and recognition are needed if these spaces are to function at

all, as Mahmud points out. Infrastructural support, funding for publicevents, and for training and transport to carry out consultations orinspect facilities are tangible measures of commitment; they are alsoessential for the very viability of these institutions. But there are other

dimensions to constructive state engagement. As Barnes suggests, thismay be as much about redressing disciplinary tendencies, valuingdiverse forms of dialogue and expression, and modifying the officialnorms and rules that often come to dominate participatory sphere

institutions as about offering citizens opportunities to participate.he personal and political commitment of state officials to theparticipatory project not only makes this support and engagementpossible, it also contributes to their willingness and capacity to

be responsive. Cornwall shows how a complex mesh of ideology,party-political affiliations and personal and professional biases appearin Brazilian bureaucrats and health workers accounts of their rolein a municipal health council. She argues that to see these spaces

purely in terms of their citizen participants is to miss an importantdimension of their democratizing effects.

he politics of inclusion by the state invites further complexities.Von Lieres argues, for South Africa, that in a political context thatfeatures prevailing expectations of the non-bindingness of public

deliberation, a history of distrust and manipulation, a lack of viablesocial mobilization to articulate demands, and residual authoritarianand paternalist tendencies in the conduct of state officials, participa-

tory arenas may simply reinforce relations of power patterned byexperiences in other institutional spaces, rather than create viablearenas for democratization. It may well be that it is in these otherspaces such as those of oppositional social movements and popularprotest that those who are silent find their political agency, develop

their skills and nourish their passion for engagement (see Mouffe). Yet in bridging these arenas and those of the participatorysphere, there may be much at stake. Dryzek ( argues that theprice of inclusion may be high for groups whose agendas divergeso significantly from state priorities that entry risks co-option anddemoralization. For some groups, and for some issues, investmentin engagement with the state may fail to pay off as energies arediverted into backwaters that detract from larger political struggles(Taylor). Barness analysis of the transformation of an institution


21/29

initiated by citizens in the UK into a government-sponsored forumdemonstrates one of the most evident consequences: a loss of social

energy as seeping bureaucratization kills off spontaneity and creativity,leaving such an institution a pale shell of its former self.Von Lieress account of the South African Treatment Action

Campaign (TAC) shows how engagement at multiple interfaces

with the state from the courts and the streets to the clinic mayoffer greater prospects for extending the boundaries of the political(Melucci . It is, she argues, in their capacity to intermediate,to work across arenas with a politics of identification that brings

together a diverse spectrum of interest groups, that their efficacylies. As the TAC case shows, strategic participation may come todepend on the exercise of agency outside the participatory arena,to lever pressure for change (Cortez . Barness account high-lights the significance of the construction and mobilization of anoppositional consciousness as a means of animating participation(see Mouffe . But, as she points out, this in itself poses newchallenges for state actors, including the need for skills for creative

conflict management to work constructively with oppositionalpositions without dousing their passion, and for acknowledging aplurality of discursive styles, rather than trying to manage voicesinto acceptable versions. Intermediation is required within as wellas across sites for engagement if participation is to produce bettermutual understanding between the diversity of actors within theparticipatory sphere.

Conclusion

The normative expectations of deliberative and participatory democ-racy find weak support in the findings of the studies of everydayexperiences of participatory governance in this book. But, despiteconsiderable shortcomings, the cases presented here give some causefor optimism. Their very ordinariness tells other stories: of incremental

change, of a growing sense of entitlement to participate, of slow butreal shifts in political agency. They reveal glimpses of how open-ing up previously inaccessible decision-making processes to publicengagement can stimulate the creation of new political subjects aswell as new subjectivities and, with it, deepen democracy along allthree of Dryzeks axes.


22/29

What does it take for participation in the participatory sphereto offer real prospects for change in the status quo for historically

marginalized social groups? Coelho shows here how it is the conjunctionof enabling policies and legal frameworks, committed and responsivebureaucrats, well-coordinated, articulate social actors and inclusive in-

stitutional designs that produces greater diversity among representatives,

thus expanding access if not the influence of historically marginalizedgroups. Yet these co-factors do not add up to a one-size-fits-all recipe.

ontext matters. In many of the cases in this book, a number of these

factors are striking in their absence. In contexts such as Bangladesh

and Angola, ineffective, under-resourced and corrupt state structuresfracture the possibilities for responsiveness. In contexts like the UK,India, South Africa and Brazil where the state is relatively strong, a fear

of letting go of control, high levels of bureaucratization and embedded

aspects of political culture provide potent obstacles to the participation

of traditionally excluded citizens.hese contrasts urge that more attention be paid to the contingen-

cies of political culture. They underline the need for any analysis of

participation to be set within the histories of statesociety relationsthat have shaped the configurations and contestations of the present.Political histories and cultures of struggle as of subjugation, ofauthoritarian rule as of political apathy may embed dispositions instate and societal actors that are carried into spaces for participation.

hese may make alliances with state actors or forms of collaborationdifficult to realize, especially for groups whose right to participate atall has been persistently denied in the past. Changing political culture

calls for changes on both sides of the equation (Gaventa ).Gaventas equation highlights the mutually constitutive relationship

between state responsiveness and citizen mobilization. Contextualfactors modify the possibilities of this relationship. Where state capacity

is attenuated by under-resourcing, corruption or plain ineffectiveness,

citizens may mobilize to provide for themselves; where cultures ofpaternalism, patrimonialism or authoritarianism persist, some citizensmay gear themselves up for a fight but others may never enter thefray. What a number of the cases in this book show is that in suchcontexts, the introduction of new political practices, new spaces forthe articulation of concerns and interests, and new opportunitiesfor political apprenticeship can begin a process of change that mayhave broader ripple effects. They point to shifts that have begun toreconfigure democratic engagement.


23/29

he routinization of discussion about public policies in the partici-

patory sphere has successfully served to broaden debate beyond more

closed technical and political spaces, as Coelho, von Lieres and Kahane,Roque and Shankland, Barnes, and Rodgers show. Certain conditions

amplify possibilities for change: mobilized collective actors (Castello et

al.; von Lieres; Rodgers; Cornwall); state actors interested in buildinglonger-term alliances with civil society (Coelho; Barnes; Cornwall);institutional design characteristics that contribute to reducing asym-metric distribution of resources among participants (Coelho; vonLieres and Kahane); and opportunities to influence resource allocation

as well as the shape of public policies (Rodgers; Barnes). Our casesalso show that other, more contingent, factors can alter the balance ofpower. These may be unintended consequences, such as the mutations

described by Roque and Shankland or the processes of politicizationthat accompany resource negotiations analysed by Rodgers, whose net

effects are unexpected democratization. Or they may be the subtleshifts that new discourses of rights, social justice and citizenship create

as they circulate through networks that support different social actors

and expand their interpretive and political horizons.Participatory sphere institutions can become schools for citizen-

ship in the words of a Brazilian activist cited by Cornwall inwhich those who participate learn new meanings and practices ofcitizenship by working together. The sheer diversity of actors andpositions within this sphere offer opportunities for developing anexpanded understanding (Arendt that allows people to seebeyond their own immediate problems or professional biases. As

Rodgers, Barnes and Cornwall observe, participants in these spacesbring commitment to them and talk of getting an enormous amount

of personal fulfilment out of their engagement. Interactions in thissphere can help change dispositions among bureaucrats as well ascitizens, instilling greater respect, and enhancing their propensity

to listen and commitment to respond. Yet much depends on theopenness and capacity of the state. Where entrenched inequalities and

the postures and practices of state officials mute marginal voices, andwhere little willingness or capacity exists to redress these inequali-ties and address the specific concerns of these groups, other spacesoutside these arenas become especially critical: as sites both in whichto gain confidence and consolidate positions and from which to acton other parts of the state through other forms of political action,including strategic non-participation (Cortez ).


24/29

Our studies show that pervasive inequalities in power and knowl-edge and embedded political cultures pose considerable challenges for

creating inclusive deliberative fora. They suggest that even in caseswhere there is considerable political will to ensure the viability ofthese institutions, inequalities of power and knowledge and embedded

technocracy affect their democratizing prospects. What do they tell us

about how these inequalities can be addressed and how marginalizedgroups can become more meaningfully involved? The first step isto guarantee a place at the table for such groups, through rules ofengagement as well as of selection that seek to broaden participation

beyond established interest groups. This, in turn, requires processesthat can build the capabilities of more marginalized actors to usetheir voices and that extend capacity building efforts to state officials,as much to unlearn attitudes as to acquire the capacity to listen tocitizens and recognize their rights.

he challenge for expanding democracy through the participatory

sphere may be less the extent to which democratic institutions

can bring about change than which changes in whom and in whose

interests. An ever-present dilemma is how to insulate these spacesfrom capture by non-democratic elements, including administrationsthat simply use them for therapeutic or rubber-stamping purposes(Arnstein ). Another is how to guarantee their political efficacyand viability, and address some of the very real tensions that arisebetween short-term and long-term solutions, between inclusivenessand effectiveness, between struggle and negotiation. The very newness

of many of these institutions, the weakness of their institutional

designs and the limited purposes for which some of them wereoriginally created have tended to create fragile connections, if any,with the formal architecture of governance. This creates a numberof problems, including the difficulty of ensuring the democratic

legitimacy of decisions made in fora that bypass electoral and parlia-mentary mechanisms of representation (Dryzek ; de Vita ).

ltimately, the extent that the participatory sphere is able to promote

legitimate representation and distributional justice may depend notmerely on how each space within it performs, but on relationshipswith other institutions within the public sphere and the state.

Amplifying the democratic potential and enhancing the democratic

legitimacy of the participatory sphere, the cases presented here suggest,

need to take place on three fronts: catalysing and supporting processes

of social mobilization through which marginalized groups can nurture


25/29

new leaders, enhance their political agency and seek representationin these arenas as well as efficacy outside them; instituting measures

to address exclusionary elements within the institutional structureof the participatory sphere, from rules of representation to strategiesthat foster more inclusive deliberation, such as the use of facilitation;and articulating participatory sphere institutions more effectively with

other governance institutions, providing them with resources as wellas with political teeth. It is with addressing these challenges fortheory, as well as for practice that future directions for participatory

governance lie.

Notes

We would like to thank the Spaces for Change working group of theDevelopment Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Account-ability, and John Gaventa, DRC Director, for all their contributions to theideas presented in this chapter. Our analysis benefited from the commentsof John Gaventa, Peter Houtzager, David Kahane, Ranjita Mohanty andIan Scoones, to whom we are very grateful.

. We are grateful to Marcus Melo for this point.. The genealogy of writing on participatory democracy can be traced back

to Aristotle, and has its more recent roots in the work of Pateman ( and MacPherson ().

. Indeed, as Dryzek points out, public policy is not indeterminate and thereare certain imperatives that all states simply must meet (: ).

. The term invited spaces originates in joint work with Karen Brock andJohn Gaventa (Brock, Cornwall and Gaventa ; Cornwall ; Gaventa).

References

Abers, R. () Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil BoulderCO: Westview Press.

Acharya, A., P. Houtzager and A. Gurza Lavalle () Civil society representationin the participatory budget and deliberative councils of So Paulo, Brazil,IDS Bulletin (): .

Ackerman, J. () Co-governance for accountability: beyond exit and voice,World Development(): .

Arendt, H. () The Human Condition Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Arnstein, S.R. () A ladder of participation in the USA,Journal of the Royal

own Planning Institute, April: .Alvarez, S., E. Dagnino and A. Escobar, eds () Cultures of Politics/Politics of

ultures: Revisioning Latin American Social Movements Boulder CO: Westviewress.


26/29

Avritzer, L. () Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America, Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Baocchi, G. () Participation, activism, and politics: the Porto Alegre experi-

ment and deliberative democratic theory, Politics and Society (): Blair, H. () Participation and accountability at the periphery,World Develop-

ment (): .Brock, K., A. Cornwall and J. Gaventa () Power, knowledge and political

spaces in the framing of poverty policy, IDS Working Paper No. , Instituteof Development Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer.

Bourdieu, P. () utline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Bohman, J., and W. Rehg, eds () Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and

Politics, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Chambers, R. () Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last London: Inter-mediate Technology Publications.

Chandoke, N. () he Conceits of Civil Society, Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Chaudhuri, S., and P. Heller () The plasticity of participation: evidencefrom a participatory governance experiment, Department of Economics,Columbia University, mimeo.

Coelho, V.S. ( , Brazils health councils: the challenge of building participa-tory political institutions, IDS Bulletin (): .

Coelho, V.S., and M. Nobre, eds ( Participao e Deliberao: Teoria Democrticae Experincias Institucionais no Brasil Contemporneo [Participation and delibera-tion: democratic theory and institutional experiences in contemporary Brazil],So Paulo: Letras.

Cohen, J.L., and A. Arato () Civil Society and Political Theory CambridgeMA: MIT Press.

Cohen, J., and C. Sabel () Directly-deliberative polyarchy, European LawJournal (): .

Cornwall, A. () Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in

development, IDS Working Paper No. , Institute of Development Studies,University of Sussex, Falmer.

Cornwall, A., and V.S. Coelho, eds (), New democratic spaces?, IDS Bulletin().

Cortez, C.R. ( Social strategies and public policies in an indigenous zonein Chiapas, Mexico, IDS Bulletin ():

Crook, R., and A. Sverisson () Does decentralization contribute to povertyreduction? Surveying the evidence, in P. Houtzager and M. Moore, eds,Changing Paths: International Development and the Politics of Inclusion, Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.Cunill, N. () Repensando lo pblico a travs de la sociedad, Caracas: NuevaImagen.

agnino, E. () We all have rights but: contesting concepts of citizenshipin Brazil, in N. Kabeer, ed., Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions,London: Zed Books.

de Vita, . ( Democracia deliberativa ou igualdade de oportunidades


27/29

polticas?, in V.S. Coelho and M. Nobre, Participao e Deliberao: eoriaDemocrtica e Experincias Institucionais no Brasil Contemporneo So Paulo: Letras.

Dryzek, J.S. ( Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratization,American Political Science Review(): .

Dryzek, J.S. () Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, ContestationsOxford: Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J.S. (). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy, Politicalheory, October:

Edwards, M. () Civil Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.Fischer, F. ( itizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowl-

edge, Durham NC: Duke University Press.

Fishkin, J., and R. Luskin () The quest for deliberative democracy, Theood Society ( : Foucault, M. () Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller,

eds, he Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Fox, J. ( How does civil society thicken? The political construction ofsocial capital in Mexico, World Development:

Fraser, N. () Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critiqueof actually existing democracy, in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the PublicSphere, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fung, A. () Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional designchoices and their consequences, ournal of Philosophy ( ): .

Fung, A., and E.O. Wright, eds () Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovationn Empowered Participatory Governance London: Verso.

Gaventa, J. () Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformativepossibilities, in S. Hickey and G. Mohan, eds, From Tyranny to Transformation London: Zed Books.

Gaventa, J. ( Deepening the deepening democracy debate, Institute ofevelopment Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, mimeo.

du Gay, Paul () In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics, London:Sage.

Goetz, A.-M., and J. Gaventa (), Bringing citizen voice and client focusinto service delivery, IDS Working Paper No. , Institute of DevelopmentStudies, University of Sussex, Falmer.

Goetz, A.-M., and R. Jenkins ( Reinventing Accountability: Making DemocracyWork for the Poor London: Macmillan/Palgrave.

Habermas, J. () he Theory of Communicative Action London: Heinemann.Hajer, M., and H. Wagenaar, eds () Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding

overnance in the Network Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heller, P. () Moving the state: the politics of democratic decentralization inKerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre, Politics & Society (): .

Houtzager, P. ( Introduction: from polycentrism to the polity, in P. Hout-zager and M. Moore, eds, Changing Paths: International Development and theNew Politics of Inclusion Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Houtzager, P., A. Gurza Lavalle and A. Acharya () Atores da sociedade civil e


28/29

atores polticos participao nas novas polticas democrticas em So Paulo,in L. Avritzer, ed., Participao Poltica em So Paulo, So Paulo: UNESP.

Immergut, E.M. () Health Politics: Interest and Institutions in Western Europe,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kabeer, N., ed. ( Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions London:

Zed Books.Kohn, M. () Language, power and persuasion: toward a critique of delibera-

tive democracy, onstellations (): .Lefebvre, H. ( The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell.Manor, J. () User committees: a potentially damaging second wave of de-

centralization?, European Journal of Development Research ( .Mansbridge, J. () On the idea that participation makes better citizens, in

S. Elkin and K. Soltan, eds, Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Mansbridge, J. () What does a representative do? Descriptive representation

in communicative settings of distrust, uncrystallized interests, and historicallydenigrated status, Citizenship in Diverse Societies, March: .

Mansbridge, J. () Rethinking representation,American Political Science Review( November:

MacPherson, C.B. () Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Melucci, A. () Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mouffe, C. () Politics and passions: the states of democracy, Centre for theStudy of Democracy, London.

ateman, C. () Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

hillips, A. () The Politics of Presence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.iven, F. Fox, and R. Cloward () Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public

Welfare New York: Random House.Skocpol, T., and M.P. Fiorina ( Making sense of the civic engagement

debate, in T. Skocpol and M.P. Fiorina, eds, ivic Engagement in AmericanDemocracy, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

arrow, S. () Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

aylor, L. () Citizenship, Participation and Democracy: Changing Dynamics inChile and Argentina London: Macmillan.

hompson, J. () Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies:facilitating the process of institutional change, World Development ( :.

vedt, T. (), NGOs role at the end of history: Norwegian policy and thenew paradigm, in F. Hossain and S. Myllyl, eds, NGOs Under Challenge:Dynamics and Drawbacks in Development, Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Af-fairs of Finland.

UNDP ( Human Development Report New York: UNDP.Warren, M. () Democracy and Association, Princeton: Princeton University

Press.


29/29

World Bank () World Development Report : Attacking Poverty NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Young, I.M. ( , Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democ-

racy, in Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundariesof the Political Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Young, I.M. () Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, I.M. () Reply to Bohman, Drexler and Hames-Garcia, he Good

Society (): .

Documents

cornwall coellho